Narrative complexity and scope. Those are the only two definitions you really need. The sad part is most people apply it using scope only, which is why it's become such a tired term.

I'll +1 this.

When I think "epic" I think stuff like The Iliad, The Odyssey, Ramayana, Mahabharata, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Gone With the Wind. Broad scope and complex narratives.

With a lot of video games, I can dig the narrative complexity without the broad scope. Ever17's my all time fave and it's all about the complex narrative with a very tight scope/focus. In games like Magna Carta, the scope is certainly there and the narrative is solid, but there are lulls where nothing really happens. Perhaps that's fine in a book, but not so much in a video game.

I wonder, in marketing is "epic" becoming a term like "mojo" where it's more defined by gut feeling than criteria? Where you can't explain it beyond "I know it when I see it." Perhaps it's becoming a nebulous concept in gaming but remains more defined in books or movies? I don't know.

The problem with lumping scope (fairly objective) together with complexity (more subjective) in a descriptor like "epic" is that it begins to lose its value as a descriptor. In philosophy (the study of abstract discussion), terms are usually defined to keep objective descriptors separate from subjective descriptors, which helps avoid confusion. Otherwise, in this example, "epic" storytelling pretty much equals "good" storytelling. Which is fine with marketers, because marketing is more about misdirection than clear communication anyway.

Addendum:Complexity need not be subjective, but the problem is the usage in this context. We call a game with a well-written multi-layered story complex, but a game with a terribly written multi-layered story isn't complex--it's pretentious, or nonsensical. In other words, only "good" stories can be complex, which is what injects the subjectivity into the word.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:01:40 PM by magusgs »

Logged

The content of this post represents solely the opinion of the user, and is not guaranteed for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness. Any facts potentially contained therein may have little or no basis in reality. RPGFan shall not be held liable for fits of aggression or disgust inspired by the contents of this post. Read at your own risk.

Addendum:Complexity need not be subjective, but the problem is the usage in this context. We call a game with a well-written multi-layered story complex, but a game with a terribly written multi-layered story isn't complex--it's pretentious, or nonsensical. In other words, only "good" stories can be complex, which is what injects the subjectivity into the word.

Ah yes, that's what i was going to say, having a ton of characters and sub-plots going around won't make a story good or "deep" by default. A good story can work just fine with just 3 or 4 characters talking in the same room. It's not about the quantity but the quality.